COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2022 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Estonia Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2022 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2022-07-13
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Estonia, coronavirus disease, corruption, democracy, epidemic, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, pluralism in the media, political rights, rule of law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Luxembourg, 13.7.2022  SWD(2022) 506 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2022 Rule of Law Report        Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Estonia Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2022 Rule of Law Report          The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2022) 500 final} - {SWD(2022) 501 final} - {SWD(2022) 502 final} - {SWD(2022) 503 final} - {SWD(2022) 504 final} - {SWD(2022) 505 final} - {SWD(2022) 507 final} - {SWD(2022) 508 final} - {SWD(2022) 509 final} - {SWD(2022) 510 final} - {SWD(2022) 511 final} - {SWD(2022) 512 final} - {SWD(2022) 513 final} - {SWD(2022) 514 final} - {SWD(2022) 515 final} - {SWD(2022) 516 final} - {SWD(2022) 517 final} - {SWD(2022) 518 final} - {SWD(2022) 519 final} - {SWD(2022) 520 final} - {SWD(2022) 521 final} - {SWD(2022) 522 final} - {SWD(2022) 523 final} - {SWD(2022) 524 final} - {SWD(2022) 525 final} - {SWD(2022) 526 final} - {SWD(2022) 527 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

The digitalisation of the justice system in Estonia, which is already well advanced, continued 
to improve, including in the field of criminal proceedings. This high level of digitalisation has 
allowed the justice system to continue working efficiently, with some further improvements 
in  criminal  cases.  Challenges  have  been  identified  as  regards  the  workload  of  judges,  as 
illustrated by a survey conducted among judges. To address these challenges and to even-out 
the workload between courts, a new regime was created for transfer of cases. Concerns have 
been  raised  about  the  effect  of  the  application  of  this  new  regime  because  it  may  require 
judges  to  travel  to  hold  hearings  in  cases  they  were  assigned.  Court  fees  have  been 
significantly increased but citizens can rely on a number of safeguards, including exemption 
from court fees for cases with the highest social significance, such as child support disputes, 
labour and pension related disputes. 

The anti-corruption network effectively supports the implementation of the 2021-2025 Anti-
Corruption  Action  Plan.  The  criminal  justice  system  for  investigating  and  prosecuting 
corruption  continues  to  function  well.  The  Guidelines  on  Lobbying  are  being  implemented 
and the first evaluation of their effectiveness is still ongoing. There are shortcomings in the 
implementation of the Guidelines on Conflicts of interest, including the lack of evaluation of 
their implementation, which does not allow to verify and monitor whether they have met their 
objectives.  The  first  feedback  on  the  implementation  of  the  Anti-Corruption  Act  extending 
the obligation to declare interests to ministers’ political advisers and the deputy secretaries-
general  of  ministries  is  positive.  The  draft  law  that  would  strengthen  the  powers  of  the 
Political  Parties’  Financing  Surveillance  Committee  is  under  preparation.  The  Government 
has  proposed  a  comprehensive  law  to  protect  whistleblowers,  which  is  currently  being 
discussed in Parliament.  

Estonia  has  amended  the  media  law  to  strengthen  the  independence  of  the  media  regulator 
and enhance the transparency of media ownership, including beneficial owners. The right of 
access  to  information  is  protected  by  the  Constitution,  yet  actual  disclosure  practices  vary 
between  public  bodies.  There  is  legislation  in  place  that  foresees  detailed  procedures  for 
operating TV and radio licenses without media-specific quantitative rules for market entry or 
operation. Legislative safeguards for the independence of public service media are in place. 
Since  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  the  comprehensive  framework  for  the  protection  of 
journalists has remained stable.  

A project creating a new digital platform to further improve the process of enactment of laws 
entered its first implementation phases. As a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, new 
legislation provides a broader basis for measures to address health emergencies and exercise 
supervision.  The  Cohesive  Estonia  Development  Plan  2021-2030  replaces  or  integrates  all 
previous strategies and plans related to Civil Society Organisations, and extends the duration 
of the previous programme. 

1 

 
 
 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

It is recommended to Estonia to: 

  Ensure  that  the  guidelines  on  the  conflict  of  interests  are  subject  to  an  effective 

verification, monitoring and enforcement mechanism. 

  Continue the efforts in effective implementation of the guidelines on lobbying. 
  Ensure  consistent  and  effective  practical  implementation  of  the  right  of  access  to 
information taking into account European standards on access to official documents. 
  Continue advancing with the digital platform to  make the legislative process even more 

visible and inclusive for public consultation. 

2 

 
 
I. 

JUSTICE SYSTEM  

The  Estonian  court  system  consists  of  three  levels:  four  County  Courts  (hearing  all  civil, 
criminal  and  misdemeanour  matters)  and  two  Administrative  Courts  at  first  instance,  two 
Circuit Courts at second instance (reviewing decisions of County and Administrative Courts), 
and  the  Supreme  Court  at  the  highest  instance,  which  reviews  court  judgments  by  way  of 
cassation  proceedings  and  is  also  the  court  of  constitutional  review.  The  Supreme  Court 
administers its own budget and operations, while the courts of first and second instance are 
administered  in  cooperation  between  the  Council  for  Administration  of  Courts  and  the 
Ministry  of  Justice.  The  Council  for  Administration  of  Courts  is  a  non-permanent  body1, 
which  has  powers,  among  others,  related  to  the  judicial  map,  the  resources  of  the  judiciary 
and participates in the discussion on administration of the courts. Judges of first and second 
instance courts are appointed by the President of the Republic on the proposal of the Supreme 
Court  (en  banc)2.  The  Prosecutor’s  Office  is  a  government  agency  under  the  Ministry  of 
Justice, which is independent in the performance of its duties. It is managed by the Prosecutor 
General, particularly as regards the appointment and career of prosecutors3. The Estonian Bar 
Association  is  an  independent,  self-governing  professional  association4.  Disciplinary 
proceedings  against  lawyers  can  be  initiated  before  the  Court  of  Honour5  by  any  interested 
person or by the board of the Bar Association6. Estonia participates in the European Public 
Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). 

Independence  

The level of perceived judicial independence in Estonia has decreased, yet continues to 
be  high  among  the  general  public  and  average  among  companies.  Overall,  60%  of  the 
general population and 47% of companies perceive the level of independence of courts and 
judges  to  be  ‘fairly  or  very  good’  in  20227.  According  to  data  in  the  2022  EU  Justice 
Scoreboard,  the  level  has  decreased  for  both  the  general  public  and  for  companies,  both  in 
comparison to 2021 (66% for the general public and 57% for companies), and in comparison 
to 2016 (62% for the general public and 72%).  

The  effects  of  the  application  of  the  new  regime  for  the  transfer  of  cases,  intended  to 
address the excessive workload, raise concerns in relation to the transfer of judges. On 7 
July 2021, the Presidents of the Tallinn and Tartu Circuit Courts of Appeal made use of the 

1   The Council does not function on a permanent basis and has four regular sessions, as well as extraordinary 
sessions  whenever needed. See 2020 Rule of Law  Report,  Country Chapter on the rule  of law situation in 
Estonia, p.3. 

2   The Supreme Court en banc is the highest body of the Supreme Court. It is comprised of all 19 justices of 
the  Supreme  Court.  The  Supreme  Court  en  banc  is  convened  and  chaired  by  the  Chief  Justice  of  the 
Supreme Court. 

3   The  Prosecutor  General  exercises  supervisory  control  in  the  prosecutor's  office,  and  chief  prosecutors 

exercise supervisory control in district prosecutor's offices. 

4   § 2(1) of the Bar Association Act. 
5   § 15(1) and § 15(3) of the Bar Association Act - The Court of Honour consists of four sworn lawyers elected 
by  the  general  assembly  of  the  Bar  Association,  two  judges  elected  by  the  Court  en  banc  and  one  jurist 
designated by the council of the Law Faculty of the University of Tartu. 

6   § 16(1) of the Bar Association Act. 
7   Figures 50 and 52, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. The level of perceived judicial independence is categorised 
as  follows:  very  low  (below  30%  of  respondents  perceive  judicial  independence  as  fairly  good  and  very 
good); low (between 30-39%), average (between 40-59%), high (between 60-75%), very high (above 75%). 

3 

 
                                                 
amendments reported last year8, which extended the possibility to transfer a case to another 
county  or  administrative  court9.  This  amendment  was  introduced  to  address  the  excessive 
workload  in  certain  courts  and  is  meant  to  be  used  as  an  extraordinary  measure  and  not  as 
standard practice10. Upon a request of the President of Harju County Court, the presidents of 
the two circuit courts decided to transfer 543 cases to the County Courts of Viru and Pärnu11. 
If  not  all  cases  can  be  handled  in  written  proceedings,  this  could  result  in  a  significant 
number of cases for which judges may need to travel to hold hearings in the court where the 
cases were originally filed, possibly for a longer period. Concerns have been raised that such 
transfers  of  cases  could  result  in  temporarily  transferring  judges,  for  the  duration  of  the 
hearings, without their consent, to another city12.  

Quality  

The  improvements  in  the  digitalisation  of  justice  continue  with  the  introduction  of  a 
speech recognition software. As noted in the 2020 and 2021 Rule of Law Reports, Estonia 
is among the best performing Member States when it comes to digitalisation of justice13. This 
high level of digitalisation has contributed to the efficiency and quality of the justice system. 
Furthermore, a new electronic tool has been introduced. On 19 November 2021, the speech 
recognition  software  ‘SALME’  was  introduced  to  the  Council  for  the  Administration  of 
Courts14.  The  main  goal  of  this  software  is  to  save  time  on  writing  protocols,  especially  in 
hearings in criminal matters. In its current form,  the software can process only in Estonian, 
but  the  goal  is  to  expand  it  to  other  languages.  Currently,  the  software  is  available  for 
criminal  proceedings,  but  the  Ministry  of  Justice  plans  to  expand  the  use  to  civil  and 
administrative  proceedings.  Different  types  of  trainings,  general  and  in-house,  support  the 
improvements in the digitalisation of justice15. 

Challenges  have  been  identified  as  regards  workload  of  judges.  In  2021,  a  survey 
conducted  among  judges  disclosed  the  perceived  potential  detrimental  effects  of  the 
excessive workload on the quality of justice16. The survey shows the effects of the increasing 
workload17  in  the  Estonian  justice  system18.  The  increase  of  workload  per  judge  was  also 

8   See 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Estonia, p.3. 
9   § 45(1) of the Courts Act - Referral of a matter from a county court is allowed only to another county court 

and from an administrative court only to another administrative court. 

10   Explanatory  memorandum  of  the  Courts  Act  for  §45(1)  -  if  it  is  evident  that  it  is  not  possible  to  ensure 

administration of justice pursuant to the requirements in the court. 

11   Order No 11-1/21/30 of 7 July 2021 - On a request by the President of Harju County Court for referral of 

cases pursuant to Section 451 of the Courts Act. 

12   Information received from the Estonian Association of Judges in the context of the country visit to Estonia.  
13   Figures 42 to 49 from the 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
14   Contribution  from  the  Supreme  Court  and  Council  for  the  Administration  of  Courts  for  the  2022  Rule  of 

Law Report, p. 12. 

15   Information received  from the Ministry of Justice,  Supreme Court and Estonian Judges  Association in the 

context of the country visit to Estonia.  

16   Estonian  Judges  Association  (2022),  Workload  survey  for  I-II  level  judges.  The  survey  was  prepared  and 
conducted  by  the  Estonian  Association  of  Judges.  The  survey  was  conducted  at  the  end  of  2021  and  the 
summary  of  the  responses  was  issued  on  20  January  2022.  It  was  answered  by  112  out  of  241  (the  total 
number of all cases in Estonia for this number of judges is 51 244, as per the Council for the Administration 
of Courts) judges and covered questions related to the workload. 

17   About half of the respondents have considered, occasionally or often, leaving their job due to the excessive 
workload.  About  90%  of  the  respondents  consider  that  workload  is  a  stress  factor,  which  to  some  degree 
affected their abilities to perform their duties. See also on 10 February 2022, the statistics for the workload 

4 

 
                                                 
 
illustrated by the Yearbook of Estonian Courts, where a summary of the data shows that at 
first instance courts the workload of judges varies between 227 and 447 cases that a judge has 
per year19. The main factors affecting the workload of judges, according to the same survey 
as well as other stakeholders20, are legislative changes that increased the workload but not the 
available  positions  of  judges,  the  increased  complexity  of  cases,  the  excessive  number  of 
cases  and  the  low  quality  of  procedural  documents  submitted  by  the  parties  to  the 
proceedings. Moreover, due to an upcoming retirement wave21, the justice system could face 
challenges  filling  in  the  vacant  positions22.  In  June  2022,  one  of  the  main  topics  at  the 
General  Assembly  of  all  judges  in  Estonia  will  be  the  increase  in  workload  and  how  the 
situation can be improved.  

Court  fees  have  been  significantly  increased  with  a  number  of  safeguards.  As  of  1 
January 2022, the court fees in Estonia were increased by 40% on average. This is the first 
increase of the court fees since 2011. The 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard shows that the court 
fees  in  consumer  and  commercial  cases  are  already  among  the  higher  ones  in  the  EU23. 
According to the Government, the economic growth of Estonia since the last revision of court 
fees, as reflected in the increase of GDP, has justified this measure24. The increase was not 
accompanied by other reforms, such as a reform of the available legal aid scheme. According 
to  stakeholders,  the  increase  could  also  be  seen  as  a  way  to  decrease  the  workload  of  the 
courts  by  disincentivising  cases  from  being  brought  before  the  courts,  while  making 
alternative  dispute  resolution  more  attractive25.  In  certain  cases,  related  to  family  matters, 
such  as  divorce  or  disputes  over  the  custody  of  a  child,  a  mandatory  alternative  dispute 
resolution  was  introduced.  The  State  Fees  Act  also  lists  a  number  of  exceptions  from 
payment of the fees for each of the areas affected by the increase; some of the areas with the 
highest  social  significance,  such  as  child  support  disputes,  labour  and  pension  related 
disputes, are exempted from court fees altogether26. The Estonian justice system also allows a 

of courts for 2021 was released, Council for the Administration of Courts (2022), Statistics for the workload 
of courts for 2021. 

18   The Minister of Justice confirmed that there is an increase of workload in civil cases, administrative cases 

and stated that the workload of circuit courts is the highest of the last years.  

19   This data concerns only civil and criminal cases. The lowest average workload of a judge per year relates to 
Pärnu county court in criminal cases, while the highest average workload of a judge per year relates to Harju 
county court in civil cases. – Summary of the Procedural Statistics of the County, Administrative and Circuit 
Courts in 2020: about Resolved Matters (incl. Paperless Procedure) and the Average Workload of a Judge.  
20   Information received from the Supreme Court and Estonian Judges Association in the context of the country 

visit to Estonia. 

21   About 1/3 of all judges in Estonia are expected to retire in the next 2 years. Moreover, in 2022, there are 20 
judges  eligible  for  retirement.  -  Information  received  from  the  Supreme  Court  and  Estonian  Judges 
Association in the context of the country visit to Estonia. 

22   This is already the case for positions in the field of criminal law. – Information received from the Estonian 

Judges Association in the context of the country visit to Estonia. 

23   Figures 26 and 27, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. The two figures present court fees in specific consumer and 
commercial case scenario, respectively. The data in the 2022 edition of the Scoreboard present the situation 
before the reform. 

24   Input from Estonia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p.1. 
25   Information received from the Estonian Judges Association and Estonian Bar Association in the context of 

the country visit to Estonia.  

26   § 22 of the State Fees Act. 

5 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
party to challenge court fee rates before the Constitutional Review Chamber of the Supreme 
Court on a case-by-case basis27.  

Efficiency 

The  justice  system  continues  to  work  efficiently,  with  some  further  improvements  in 
criminal cases. The length of proceedings and pending cases are among the shortest in the 
EU28. In 2021, civil cases were resolved with a similar efficiency as in 2020 in county courts 
(in 101 days on average), criminal cases were resolved fairly faster than in 2020 (on average, 
in 192 days in general criminal proceedings, 24 days in simplified proceedings, and 44 days 
in misdemeanour cases)29. In the first instance courts, administrative cases were resolved with 
a  similar  efficiency  as  in  2020  (on  average  127  days)30.  The  average  processing  time  for 
appeals was 162 days in civil cases, 66 days in criminal cases and 40 days in administrative 
cases.  The  length  of  court  proceedings  in  civil,  commercial  and  administrative  cases  is 
shorter  than  average  in  the  EU  (measured  in  disposition  time)  and  the  number  of  pending 
cases  are  amongst  the  lowest  in  the  EU.  Compared  to  2020,  the  clearance  rate  increased 
slightly  above  100%,  which  means  that  courts  were  generally  able  to  cope  with  incoming 
cases31. 

II. 

ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK  

The anti-corruption institutional set-up has not changed compared to the 2021 Rule of Law 
Report. The Ministry of Justice is in charge of the preparation, oversight and coordination of 
the anti-corruption Action Plan 2021-2025. The Anti-Corruption Select Committee exercises 
parliamentary  scrutiny  over  the  implementation  of  anti-corruption  measures.  The  Political 
Parties’  Financing  Surveillance  Committee  oversees  political  parties’  funding.  The 
Corruption  Crimes’  Office  of  the  National  Criminal  Police  is  a  specialised  unit  responsible 
for  carrying  out  investigations  on  corruption  cases,  and  the  Internal  Security  Service  is 
responsible  for  investigating  corruption  offences  committed  by  higher  state  officials  and 
higher  local  government  officials  in  six  larger  municipalities.  The  Prosecutor’s  Office 
supervises and directs pre-trial criminal investigation proceedings on corruption offences and 
represents the public prosecution in courts. 

The perception among experts and business executives is that the level of corruption in 
the  public  sector  in  Estonia  remains  relatively  low.  In  the  2021  Corruption  Perceptions 
Index  by  Transparency  International,  Estonia  scores  74/100  and  ranks  6th  in  the  European 

27   See Art. 15, para 1, second sentence of the Constitution, everyone is entitled to petition the court that hears 
his or her case to declare unconstitutional any law (or a provision thereof) relevant (applicable) in the case. 
See  also Art.  152 of the Constitution, the  courts refuse  to give effect to the applicable law (or a provision 
thereof)  that  conflicts  with  the  Constitution  (para  1),  and  the  Supreme  Court  declares  invalid  any  law  or 
other legislation or administrative decision that conflicts with the letter and spirit of the Constitution (para 
2). 

28   Figures 6-10 and 17-24, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
29   See  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Country  Chapter  on  the  rule  of  law  situation  in  Estonia,  p.  5  -  In  2020, 
criminal cases were resolved on average in 226 days in general criminal proceedings, 28 days in simplified 
proceedings  and  46  days  in  misdemeanour  cases.  In  the  first  instance  courts,  administrative  cases  were 
resolved  in  an  average  of  123  days.  In  the  first  instance  courts,  administrative  cases  were  resolved  in  an 
average of 123 days. 

30   Input from Estonia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p.4.  
31   Figures 11-16, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 

6 

 
                                                 
Union  and  13th  globally32.  This  perception  has  improved33  over  the  past  five  years34.  The 
2022  Special  Eurobarometer  on  Corruption  shows  that  43%  of  respondents  consider 
corruption  widespread  in  their  country  (EU  average  68%)  and  12%  of  respondents  feel 
personally  affected  by  corruption  in  their  daily  lives  (EU  average  24%)35.  As  regards 
businesses, 33% of companies consider that corruption is widespread (EU average 63%) and 
9%  consider  that  that  corruption  is  a  problem  when  doing  business  (EU  average  34%)36. 
Furthermore, 38% of respondents find that there are enough successful prosecutions to deter 
people  from  corrupt  practices  (EU  average  34%)37,  while  50%  of  companies  believe  that 
people  and  businesses  caught  for  bribing  a  senior  official  are  appropriately  punished  (EU 
average 29%)38. 

The  extended  anti-corruption  network  effectively  supports  the  implementation  of  the 
2021-2025 Anti-Corruption Action Plan. The network, which was originally composed of 
anti-corruption coordinators from each ministry, was in the last years expanded to additional 
stakeholders and it is now composed of 29 members39. In 2021, the network met six times. 
The tasks of the network, mainly related to developing and sharing best practices, supporting 
cooperation and mutual learning and exchanging experience, inlcude now also monitoring the 
activities  foreseen  by  the  Action  Plan40.  According  to  the  authorities  and  civil  society,  the 
network is a key player in the implementation of the Action Plan41. The cooperation between 
authorities and organisations participating in the network is considered good by both42.  

The  criminal  justice  system  for  investigating  and  prosecuting  corruption  continues  to 
function well. In 2021, the criminal justice system proved again to be effective in identifying 

32   Transparency  International  (2022),  Corruption  Perceptions  Index  2021,  p.  2-3.  The  level  of  perceived 
corruption  is  categorised  as  follows:  low  (the  perception  among  experts  and  business  executives  of  public 
sector corruption scores above 79); relatively low (scores  between 79-60), relatively  high (scores between 
59-50), high (scores below 50). 

33   In 2015 the score was 70, while in 2020 the score was 75. The Score significantly increases/decreases when 
it changes more five points; improves/deteriorates (changes between 4-5 points); is relatively stable (changes 
from 1-3 points) in the last five years. 

34   The Eurobarometer data on corruption perception and experience of citizens and businesses as reported  last 
year is updated every second year. The latest data set is the Special Eurobarometer 523 (2022) and the Flash 
Eurobarometer 507 (2022).  

35   Special  Eurobarometer  523  (2022).  The  Eurobarometer  data  on  citizens’  corruption  perception  and 
experience is updated every second year. The previous data set is the Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020). 
36   Flash  Eurobarometer  507  (2022).  The  Eurobarometer  data  on  business  attitudes  towards  corruption  as  is 

updated every second year. The previous data set is the Flash Eurobarometer 482 (2019). 

37   Special Eurobarometer 523 (2022).  
38   Flash Eurobarometer 507 (2022).  
39   The  network  is  composed  of  all  ministries,  the  Estonian  Chamber  of  Trade  and  Commerce,  Transparency 
International  Estonia,  Prosecutors  Office,  Police  and  Border  Guard,  Internal  Security  Service,  Forum  of 
Responsible Business, Network of Estonian Nonprofit Organizations, Estonian Health Insurance Fund, State 
Audit Office and the Anti-Corruption Select Committee of the  Parliament. Occasionally, depending on the 
topic, also other bodies are invited to participate, e.g. the Estonian Centre for Integrity in Sports. Information 
received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Estonia. 

40   The Anti-corruption Action Plan 2021-2025, point 4.  
41   According  to  the  Anti-corruption  Action  Plan  2021-2025,  point  4,  the  anti-corruption  network’s  main 
objectives  are  to  develop  and  share  best  practices,  support  cooperation  and  mutual  learning  and  exchange 
experience, in addition to monitoring the activities foreseen by the Action Plan. 

42   Information  received  from  the  Ministry  of  Justice  and  Transparency  International  in  the  context  of  the 

country visit to Estonia.  

7 

 
                                                 
corruption  cases43.  During  2021,  a  final  verdict  was  reached  in  relation  to  three  corruption 
cases  on  political  party  financing  and  bribery44,  and  four  more  were  brought  to  court45.  As 
regards  the  case  involving  the  Porto  Franco  development  project  in  Tallinn  that  led  to  the 
resignation of the previous Government  in  January  2021, the proceedings are still ongoing. 
To  further  support  investigation  and  prosecution  of  corruption  cases,  further  specialised 
expertise, notably regarding procurement and audit has been created46. Furthermore, specific 
anti-corruption trainings  for prosecutors and judges take place once  per quarter on average, 
focusing  on  a  variety  of  topics47.  In  addition,  members  of  the  Internal  Security  Service 
participate in the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training (CEPOL) financial 
investigation and money laundering trainings. 

Discussions  on  legislative  transparency  and  integrity  with  regard  to  lobbying  are 
ongoing.  Between  March  and  May  2022,  the  Anti-Corruption  Select  Committee  of  the 
Parliament  organised  a  series  of  three  roundtables  with  the  participation  of  external 
stakeholders48 to discuss legislative transparency and integrity with regard to lobbying. As a 
second step, concrete recommendations are to be drafted based on the discussions that were 
carried out49.  

The  Guidelines  on  Lobbying  are  being  implemented  and  the  first  evaluation  of  their 
effectiveness  has  been  carried  out.  The  Ministry  of  Justice,  together  with  Transparency 
International  Estonia  and  the  relevant  network,  have  carried  out  an  analysis  of  the 
implementation  of  these  Guidelines  on  lobbying50.  The  assessment  concluded  that  certain 
measures are needed, such as ensuring accuracy and timeliness of information51. The ranking 
of “best performers” will be published by the autumn of 2022; this is expected to encourage 
and  support  the  further  implementation  of  the  Guidelines  on  lobbying.  According  to  the 
authorities  and  stakeholders52,  the  preliminary  conclusion  is  that  the  ministries  generally 
follow the Guidelines adequately, while there are some gaps in the way they are implemented 
by  the  government  agencies  and  top  officials53.  At  the  same  time  there  is  no  enforcement 
mechanism in case the Guidelines on lobbying are not followed.  

There are shortcomings in the implementation of the Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest. 
The  Guidelines  for  ministers  and  their  advisers  to  avoid  conflicts  of  interest  have  been  in 

43   Opening  of  three  cases  related  to  high-level  officials  from  the  local  and  national  administration  were 
reported. See also 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Estonia, p. 7. 

44   Information received from the. Prosecutor’s Office in the context of the country visit to Estonia. 
45   Only one could be considered high-level corruption. 
46   The Northern District Prosecutor's Office and the Office of the Prosecutor General have created a position 
for  a  specialised  consultant  with  financial  knowledge,  which  is  used  also  in  corruption  proceedings. 
Information recieved from the Ministry of Justice following the country visit to Estonia. 

47   Such  as  financial  investigations  in  connection  with  fraud  and  corruption  cases,  anti-money  laundering, 
virtual  assets,  detection  of  corruption,  procurement  procedures,  corruption  indications  and  red  flags. 
Information received from the Ministry of Justice in writing following the country visit to Estonia. 

48   The  participants  include,  among  others,  Group  of  States  against  Corruption  of  the  Council  of  Europe 

(GRECO) and Transparency International Estonia. 

49   Information  received  from  the  Anti-Corruption  Select  Committee  in  writing  following  the  country  visit  to 

Estonia. 

50   Estonian  Government  (2021),  Good Practice  in  Communicating  with  Lobbyists  for  Officials.  Summary  of 

lobby meetings. 

51   E.g. a uniform format in which data are to be made public, possible technical platform to share information 
52   Information  received  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  in  Estonia  from  the  Ministry  of  Justice  and 

Transparency International Estonia. 

53   Information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit in Estonia. 

8 

 
                                                 
force since March 2021. They require the minister or adviser to  familiarise themselves with 
the  Guidelines  and  encourage  the  completion  of  a  dedicated  online  course54.  However,  no 
evaluation  of their  efficacy is  planned and no measures are foreseen in  case the Guidelines 
are not followed55. In view of ensuring proper implementation, in February 2022 the Minister 
of Justice reminded all ministers and their advisers that they must participate and pass the test 
in  the e-training course56. GRECO assessed that the rules  on ‘revolving doors’, included in 
the  guidelines,  represent  a  concrete  and  positive  step  forward57.  However,  overall,  the 
Guidelines lack an effective verification and monitoring mechanism. The lack of evaluation 
of the implementation of the Guidelines does not allow to assess whether they have met their 
objectives.  Also,  the  Guidelines  lack  an  enforcement  mechanism.  The  draft  legislation  on 
‘revolving  doors’  is  currently  under  consideration  by  the  Government.  The  draft  foresees  a 
cooling off period after the term of office of the Government members has expired58.  

The  first  feedback  on  the  implementation  of  the  Anti-Corruption  Act  is  positive.  Last 
year, the obligation to declare interests was extended to ministers’ political advisers and the 
deputy  secretaries-general  of  ministries59.  According  to  GRECO,  the  amendments  as 
presented  to  the  Parliament  were  a  positive  development60.  Overall,  the  initial  feedback  on 
the implementation of the amendments to the Anti-Corruption Act that entered into force in 
April  2021  indicates  their  usefulness  in  terms  of  drawing  attention  to  registering  the 
declarations of interest and ensuring clarity of the role of political advisors61. 

The  Minister  of  Justice  will  soon  submit  the  draft  law  aimed  at  strengthening  the 
powers of the Political Parties’ Financing Surveillance Committee.  In October 2021, the 
Ministry of Justice published a ‘legislative intent’62 to amend the Political Parties Act with a 
view to increase the powers of the Political Parties’ Financing Surveillance Committee. The 
draft law would extend the investigating powers of the Committee through a legal basis for 
requesting  documents,  information  and  explanations  from  third  parties.  Currently,  the 
Committee can make such requests but the third parties are under no obligation to respond. 
Furthermore, the draft law would introduce a deadline for returning prohibited donations and 
would  introduce  compulsory  enforcement  of  Committee’s  request  to  transfer  the  value  of 
these  donations  into  state  budget.  Finally,  political  parties  and  members  of  political  parties 
would  be  prohibited  from  using  public  funds  for  political  activities  of  the  party.  Currently, 

54   Estonian Government (2021), Guidelines for Ministers and their advisers to avoid conflicts of interest, paras. 

12-13. 

55   Information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Estonia. 
56   The turnout for the completion of the online course has not been promising: As of 23 February 2022, 1737 
public  officials  have  passed  the  e-test  for  the  Moodle  online  course.  In  addition,  there  are  between  4700-
7800 views for each training video in YouTube, depending on the topic, however, there is no disaggregated 
data  on  how  many  of  them  are  actually  from  public  officials  concerned  by  the  Guidelines  for  conflict  of 
interest. 

57   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Compliance Report, p. 6 and 7. 
58   Written contribution from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit. 
59   Act amending the Anti-Corruption Act 323 SE of 6.04.2021. The Ministry of Justice has identified that even 
before those rules were introduced several ministries had a practice of encouraging their deputy ministers to 
declare their assets, Information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to 
Estonia.  

60   GRECO Fifth Evaluation Round – Compliance Report, p. 8-9. The new amendment entered into force on the 

23 April 2021.  

61   Written contribution received from the Anti-Corruption Select Committee in the context of the country visit 

to Estonia. 

62   A  legislative  intent  is  the  first  step  in  the  legislative  process,  and  outlines  the  subject  matter,  objective, 

regulatory options, impact and proposed outline of legislation to be drafted. 

9 

 
                                                 
this only applies during periods of election campaigns. Following the public consultation, the 
Ministry of Justice is preparing the draft law and envisages to send it to the Government by 
August 2022, before tabling it at Parliament63. 

On  whistleblower  protection,  the  legislative  procedure  for  a  new  comprehensive 
regulation is ongoing. On 17 January 2022, the Legal Affairs Committee adopted the draft 
Act  on  the  Protection  of  Whistleblowers64  which  was  a  positive  step  according  to  both  the 
Government  and  the  stakeholders65.  The  draft  establishes  the  conditions  and  scope  of 
protection  for  whistleblowers  who  have  become  aware  of  an  infringement  in  the  course  of 
their employment. The draft stipulates the conditions and scope for obtaining protection, and 
the  means  and  channels  for  notification.  It  contains  provisions  on  safeguarding  the 
confidentiality of whistleblowers also in corruption cases66. 

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM AND MEDIA FREEDOM 

In Estonia, the freedom of expression finds legal and formal protection in the Constitution67. 
Secondary legislation expressly ensures the right of journalists to protect their sources, fosters 
media  freedom  in  the  radio  and  television  sector68  and  provides  safeguards  for  the 
independence  of  the  public  service  broadcaster69.  The  right  to  information  is  explicitly 
recognised  in  the  Constitution,  in  the  Public  Information  Act70  and  in  the  Personal  Data 
Protection Act71. Legislation has been adopted to transpose the revised Audio-Visual Media 
Services Directive (AVMSD)72. 

Estonia has adopted legislation to strengthen the independence of the media regulator – 
the  Consumer  Protection  and  Technical  Regulatory  Authority.  Amendments  to  the 
Media  Services  Act  and  amendments  to  other  associated  acts73,  transposing  the  revised 
AVMSD74,  which  were  under  preparation  during  the  previous  two  Rule  of  Law  Reports75, 
were formally adopted on 16 February 2022 and are being implemented. The amended Media 
Services  Act  entails changes in  functions and competences of the national  media regulator, 
which has been operating as an administrative body of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and 
Communications.  A specific provision  validates  the independent  and impartial  status  of the 
media regulator in carrying out its tasks, aiming to fulfil the requirements on independence 

63   Information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit to Estonia. 
64   Draft Whistleblower Protection Act 504 SE.  
65   Information received from the Ministry of Justice during the country visit to Estonia. 
66   This  initiative  has  been  proposed  in  view  of  aligning  the  national  legislation  with  the  Directive  (EU) 
2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons 
who report breaches of Union law; Information received from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the 
country visit to Estonia. 

67   Constitution of the Republic of Estonia, § 44-46. 
68   Media Services Act, §15 and 13. 
69   Estonian Public Broadcasting Act. 
70   Public Information Act. 
71   Personal Data Protection Act. 
72   Complete  transposition of  the AVMSD  was  notified to the Commission on 14 March 2022. Estonia ranks 
4th  in  the  2022  Reporters  without  Borders  World  Press  Freedom  Index  compared  to  15th  in  the  previous 
year. 

73    Act on Amendments to the Media Services Act and Amendments to Other Associated Acts 327 SE. 
74   Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament  and of the Council of 14 November 2018 amending 

Directive 2010/13/EU. 

75   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Estonia, p. 8; 2021 Rule of Law 

Report, Country Chapter on the rules of law situation in Estonia, p. 9. 

10 

 
                                                 
enshrined in the revised AVMSD76. The media regulator reports that it is able to carry out its 
tasks  efficiently  and  that  it  has  undergone  a  structural  change  at  the  end  of  2021  and  now 
benefits from the support of a new information society division77. 

Amendments to media law enhance transparency of media ownership. The transposition 
of  the  relevant  provisions  of  the  revised  AVMSD78  introduce  for  the  first  time  a  specific 
obligation  for  media  companies  to  disclose  their  ownership  structure,  including  beneficial 
ownership79.  General  information  related  to  entrepreneurship,  including  information  on 
beneficial  ownership  of  general  and  limited  partnerships,  private  and  public  limited 
companies and  commercial associations80, is  electronically made available  to  the public for 
free in the Business Register81. 

Restrictions to media ownership and concentration are limited in practice. TV and radio 
companies must obtain a licence from the media regulator to operate. The detailed procedures 
for  operating  licenses,  including  the  grounds  for  their  termination,  are  provided  for  in  the 
Media  Services  Act.  That  act  does  not  lay  down  any  quantitative  rules  for  market  entry  or 
operation,  but  does  not  allow  for  a  license  to  be  granted  in  connection  with  a  dominant 
influence  over  the  management  or  if  this  substantially  harms  competition  in  the  media 
services  market82.  The  media  regulator,  which  grants  such  activity  licences,  reports  that 
controlling  concentration  of  media  companies  is  primarily  a  task  for  the  competition 
authorities. The abovementioned provision has not been used to deny a licence for any TV or 
radio company so far, and terminations of licences are very rare83. 

The independence of public service media is foreseen by law. Rules for the independence 
and general  conditions of employment of members of the Management Board of the public 
service  media  are  laid  down  in  the  Public  Broadcasting  Act.  Members  of  the  Management 
Board  are  appointed  by  the  Public  Broadcasting  Council  composed  of  members  of  the 
Parliament and four external experts. Political influence is minimised by the fact that a two-
thirds majority practically requiring acceptance across different political parties is needed for 
the Public Broadcasting  Council to  appoint  or dismiss  members of the Management Board. 
Furthermore, according to stakeholders, the dismissal rules are robust and difficult to abuse84. 
However, the MPM 2022 points out that apart from the general diversity requirement for the 
Council,  the  Public  Broadcasting  Act  does  not  provide  any  specific  safeguards  for  the 
appointment  procedure  for  the  Director  General  of  the  public  service  media85.  There  is  no 
regulatory  body  to  monitor  the  fulfilment  of  the  public  service  remit  but  the  Supervisory 
Board reports annually to the Parliament’s cultural committee on the activities of the public 
service  media.  The  public  service  media’s  provision  of  online  news,  which  is  not  clearly 
prescribed  in  law,  has  generated  complaints  concerning  unfair  competition  among  certain 

76   Art. 30 of the revised AVMSD. 
77   Information  received  from  the  Consumer  Protection  and  Technical  Regulatory  Authority  in  the  context  of 

the country visit to Estonia. 
78   Art. 5 of the revised AVMSD. 
79   In  the  2020  Rule  of  Law  Report,  it  was  noted  that  in  Estonia  there  were  no  specific  legal  provisions 

requiring disclosure of ownership information and that it had raised some concerns (p. 8). 

80   Pursuant to Subsections 77(1), (2) and (3) of the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Act. 
81   Business Register is available here: https://rik.ee/en/e-business-register.  
82   § 32 of the Media Services Act. 
83   Information  received  from  the  Consumer  Protection  and  Technical  Regulatory  Authority  in  the  context  of 

the country visit to Estonia. 

84   Information received from the public service media in the context of the country visit to Estonia. 
85   2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Estonia, p. 16. 

11 

 
                                                 
stakeholders in the private media sector86. The ability of the public service media to produce 
public  service  content  is  threatened  by  staff  reductions  caused  by  insufficient  funding  and 
current staff working beyond their capacity87. 

The  right  of  access  to  information  is  protected  by  the  Constitution,  yet  its  practical 
implementation  continues  to  be  subject  to  divergences  amongst  authorities.  As 
mentioned  in  the  202088  and  202189  Rule  of  Law  Reports,  stakeholders  indicated  that  the 
public  administration  tends  to  deny  and/or  delay  access  to  public  information  in  certain 
cases90.  The  reasons  often  relate  to  strict  interpretation  of  data  protection  rules  and  delays 
caused  by  a  requirement  for  centralised  responses  to  journalist  enquiries which  was  further 
aggravated  by  the  COVID-19  pandemic91.  The  MPM  2022  maintains  a  medium  risk  with 
regard to the protection of right to information92. 

The  comprehensive  framework  for  the  protection  of  journalists  has  remained  stable. 
Since the 2021 Rule of Law Report, the situation regarding the protection of journalists has 
remained  stable.  The  MPM  2022  notes  that  there  have  been  no  attacks  nor  public  smear 
campaigns  against  journalists93  but  certain  instances  of  defamation  continue  to  be 
criminalised94. The Estonian procedural  law95  provides  for comprehensive  measures to  deal 
with  malicious  actions  and  parties  to  proceedings,  which  can  help  to  safeguard  journalists 
against  abusive  lawsuits96.  The  Association  of  Journalists  has  launched  an  information 
campaign  to  encourage  journalists  to  report  any  threats  to  freedom  of  the  press  they  may 
experience97. Challenges for journalists are particularly linked to fewer jobs in local papers, 
although  paid  digital  subscriptions  have  increased  substantially98.  One  alert  has  been 

86   ERR news, Private media enterprises file ERR complaint with European Commission (8 September 2020); 

2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Estonia, p. 22. 

87   Information received from the public service media in the context of the country visit to Estonia. 
88   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Estonia, p.8. 
89   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Estonia, p.10. 
90   According  to  Article  3  of  the  2009  Council  of  Europe  Convention  on  Access  to  Official  Documents,  any 
limitation  to  the  right  of  access  to  official  documents,  such  as  a  limitation  aiming  to  protect  privacy  and 
other legitimate private interests, should be set down precisely in law, be necessary in a democratic society 
and be proportionate to the stated objective; access to information contained in an official  document should 
not be refused if there is an overriding public interest in disclosure; parties to the Convention are encouraged 
to  consider  setting  time  limits  beyond  which  the  limitations  to  the  right  of  access  to  official  documents 
would no longer apply. 

91   Information  received  from  the  Estonian  Press  Council  and  the  Estonian  Association  of  Journalists  in  the 
context of the country visit to Estonia and 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Estonia, pp. 9-
10. See also the 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Estonia, pp. 8-9 
and the 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Estonia, p. 10. 

92   2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Estonia, p. 9. 
93   2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Estonia, p. 10. 
94   Penal Code § 247, 275 and 305. 
95   Code of Civil Procedure, § 45, 162, 168, 169, 200, 371(2), 383, 391, 423(2); Input from Estonia for the 2022 

Rule of Law Report, p. 6. 

96  For  example,  the  court  may  reject  or  dismiss  a  statement  of  claim,  if,  based  on  the  factual  circumstances 
presented as the cause of the court claim, a violation of the claimant's rights is impossible, or the court claim 
has not been filed for protecting the claimant's right or interest protected by law, or with an aim subject to 
legal protection by the state, or if the objective sought by the claimant cannot be achieved by the court claim. 
97  Information  received  from  the  Estonian  Association  of  Journalists  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to 

Estonia.  

98   Information received from the Estonian Association of Journalists and written contribution received by the 
Ministry  of  Culture  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Estonia;  Estonian  Media  Companies  Association 
(2021), Statistics 2021. 

12 

 
                                                 
published on the Council of Europe’s Platform to promote the protection of journalism and 
safety of journalists99. This concerned one case where fines were imposed by a court of first 
instance on two journalists and a news outlet after they published information about pre-trial 
criminal proceedings without seeking permission or informing the prosecutor’s office, which 
is required under the law100. The implications of the ruling101 were considered by journalists 
to  constitute  an  undue  interference  with  the  right  to  free  speech  and  allegedly  undermine 
press freedom102. The decision has since then been overturned by the appeal court103. 

IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

Estonia  is  a  parliamentary  republic  with  a  single-chamber  Parliament,  where  the  Supreme 
Court’s  Constitutional  Review  Chamber  can  carry  out  ex-post  constitutional  review, 
including, under certain conditions, based on a constitutional complaint104. In addition to the 
justice  system,  the  Office  of  the  Chancellor  for  Justice  (ombudsperson),  which  has  an  A-
status  accreditation from GANHRI105, plays a role106 in  the system  of checks  and balances. 
Involvement  of  the  public  and  stakeholders  in  public  affairs  is  supported  by  advanced 
Information and Communication Technology tools.  

The project creating a new digital platform to further improve the process of enactment 
of laws entered its first implementation phases. The Ministry of Justice continued the work 
on  the  ‘Co-creation  workspace  project’,  which  aims  to  create  a  new  digital  platform  to 
improve the law-making process  and improve stakeholders’ involvement in it. Even though 
the current public consultation process in Estonia already takes place via an online platform, 
the new project, which would replace the current online platform for public consultation, is 
meant  to  improve  the  visibility  of  the  ongoing  procedures  and  encourage  wider  public 
participation.  Stakeholders  have  expressed  optimism  in  the  new  platform  as  it  would  allow 
them  to  have  better  overview  of  the  ongoing  open  procedures  for  public  consultations107. 
Phase  I  of  the  project  offers  drafters  of  legislation  a  workspace,  which  allows  multiple 

99   Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists, Estonia 
100  §  214  of  the  Criminal  Procedure  Code  stipulates  that  information  concerning  pre-trial  proceedings  can  be 
disclosed only with the permission of and to the extent specified by a Prosecutor's Office and further subject 
to  a  number  of  conditions.  With  the  exception  of  accused  or  suspected  parties  to  those  pre-trial  criminal 
proceedings, failure to comply with said procedure may be subject to a fine. 

101  Harju County Court, order of 14 April 2022, 1-22-1949. 
102  European  Federation  of  Journalists  Estonia  (2022),  Criminal  fines  for  journalists  over  public  interest 
reporting send dangerous signal; ERR and Estonian Association of Media Enterprises (2022), Private media 
firms join ERR in public address on press freedoms. 

103  The court of appeal ruled that the imposition of fines is discretionary and the court of first instance had failed 
to demonstrate that they were justified in this specific case. Tallinn Circuit Court, order of 14 June 2022, 11-
22-1949.  On  28  June  2022,  the  order  of  the  Tallinn  Circuit  Court    was  appealed  and  is  currently  pending 
before the Supreme Court. 

104  § 4 of the Constitutional Review Court Procedure Act - A complaint can be referred to the Supreme Court’s 
Constitutional  Review  Chamber  by  the  President  of  the  Republic,  the  Chancellor  of  Justice,  a  local 
government council and the Parliament.  
§ 9 of the Constitutional Review Court Procedure Act - Constitutional review on the basis of court judgment 
or court ruling is also possible. 

105  Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions. 
106  The  Chancellor  of  Justice  has  a  broad  and  strong  mandate,  including  acting  as  the  National  Preventive 
Mechanism under the UN  Convention  Against Torture and the National Monitoring Mechanism under the 
UN  Convention  on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with  Disabilities.  It  also  performs  the  functions  as  the 
Ombudsperson for Children. 

107  Information  received  from  the  Open  Estonia  Foundation,  Human  Rights  Center  Estonia  and  Estonian 

Institute of Human Rights in the context of the country visit to Estonia. 

13 

 
                                                 
editors/creators to work on the same document on the platform. From January 2022, Phase II 
and  III  have  been  launched  in  parallel.  They  focus  on  internal  cooperation  between  public 
authorities, launching the new platform for public consultation, and on procedures regarding 
EU law initiatives108. 

New  legislative  amendments  have  provided  a  broader  basis  for  measures  to  address 
health emergencies and exercise supervision. In the course of 2021, the Parliament passed 
additional amendments to the Communicable Diseases Prevention and Control Act. Previous 
amendments  gave  the  Health  Board  and  the  Government  powers  to  adopt  measures  for  the 
prevention and control of the COVID-19 pandemic109. The 2021 amendments foresee that in 
the  event  of  a  particularly  dangerous  infectious  disease  and  an  unavoidable  necessity,  the 
Health  Board  and  the  Government  may  also  close  public  institutions  and  private 
establishments  or  restrict  their  activities  temporarily.  Besides  setting  the  conditions  for 
prohibiting  meetings  and  events,  the  Act  also  allows  requirements  to  be  established  for 
holding  them.  The  new  amendments  also  allow  for  involving  the  police  and  other  law 
enforcement agencies in the performance of the functions of the Health Board in emergencies 
and emergency situations related to infectious disease epidemics. Up until these amendments 
were enacted, there had been no regulation of the involvement of law enforcement authorities 
and  the  Health  Board110.  Furthermore,  according  to  the  amendments,  people  could  also  be 
held criminally liable for breaching other requirements established by the Government or the 
Health  Board111.  As  mentioned  in  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  all  COVID-19  pandemic-
related  Orders  of  the  Government  contain  information  on  how  they  can  be  legally 
challenged112. During 2021, there were 68 complaints, one of which was  closed with a final 
decision, five others were closed for other reasons, in  two cases there has been a judgment 
but  it has  not become final  yet  and in  three cases the judgments of the first  instance courts 
have been appealed. In 45 cases, a decision on interim relief has been made. All requests by 
applicants  for  interim  relief  have  been  denied  or  decisions  for  interim  relief  have  been 
appealed by the Government and have been overturned by the Circuit Court113. 

On  1  January  2022,  Estonia  had  one  leading  judgment  of  the  European  Court  of 
Human  Rights  pending  implementation114.  At  that  time,  Estonia’s  rate  of  leading 
judgments from the past 10 years that remained pending was only at 5% and the average time 

108  Written contribution from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit. 
109  § 28 of the Communicable Diseases Prevention and Control Act. Amendments adopted on 12 May 2021. 
110  The Health Board has been able to cooperate with them only through applications for professional assistance 
or exchange of officials. The new amendments will simplify and speed up the involvement by allowing the 
Government  to  decide  on  the  involvement  of  a  law  enforcement  agencies  at  the  proposal  of  the  Health 
Board. 

111  § 27 and § 28 of the Communicable Diseases Prevention and Control Act. 
112  “This Order can be appealed by filing a challenge pursuant to the procedure provided by the Administrative 
Procedure Act within 30 days as of the day the relevant person became or should have become aware of the 
Order.  This  Order  can  also  be  appealed  by  filing  an  action  with  an  administrative  court  pursuant  to  the 
procedure  provided  for  in  the  Code  of  Administrative  Court  Procedure  within  30  days  as  of  the  date  of 
publication of this Order”. 

113  Written contribution from the Ministry of Justice in the context of the country visit. 
114  The  adoption of necessary execution  measures  for a  judgment by the European  Court of Human  Rights is 
supervised by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It is the Committee’s practice to group 
cases against a State requiring similar execution measures, particularly general measures, and examine them 
jointly. The first case in the group is designated as the leading case as regards the supervision of the general 
measures and repetitive cases within the group can be closed when it is assessed that all possible individual 
measures needed to provide redress to the applicant have been taken. 

14 

 
                                                 
that the judgment had been pending implementation was only 3 months115. The case, pending 
since  September116,  concerns  a  failure  to  conduct  an  effective  criminal  investigation  into 
allegations  of  abuse117.  On  1  July  2022,  the  number  of  leading  judgments  pending 
implementation has increased to three118. 

The civic space in Estonia remains open119 and the Cohesive Estonia Development Plan 
2021-2030 replaces or integrates all previous strategies and plans. On 18 November 2021, 
the  Cohesive  Estonia  Plan  2021-2030  was  adopted.  The  plan  integrates  or  substitutes  all 
previous  plans  that  were  adopted  on  the  same  topic.  The  Cohesive  Estonian  Development 
Plan120  aims,  among  others,  at  supporting  the  activities  of  Civil  Society  Organisations 
(CSOs). The new plan, developed with the engagement of Civil Society Organisations does 
not substantially differ from the previous programme121, but its duration is extended from five 
to ten years. Furthermore, the work of CSOs is supported through the National Foundation of 
Civil  Society,  which  is  a  state-financed  civil  society  fund,  development  and  support  centre 
that focuses on helping CSOs build their capacity to function purposefully and effectively122. 
However, the budget of the fund has not increased for years123. 

115  All figures are calculated by the European Implementation Network and are based on the number of cases 
that  are  considered  pending  at  the  annual  cut-off  date  of  1  January  2022.  See  the  Contribution  from  the 
European Implementation Network for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 3.  

116  The applicant’s representatives have requested the reopening of the proceedings, which is pending. 
117  Judgment  of  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  of  22  June  2021,  R.B.  v.  Estonia,  22597/16,  pending 

implementation since 2021. 

118  Data according to the online database of the Council of Europe (HUDOC) 
119  See  rating  given  by  Civicus,  Estonia.  Ratings  are  on  a  five-category  scale  defined  as:  open,  narrowed, 

obstructed, repressed and closed. 

120  While  the  2020  Rule  of  Law  Report  noted  the  development  of  the  Civil  Society  Development  Plan  2021-
2030, and the 2021 Report mentioned the launch of the Civil Society Programme 2021-2024 to replace it, in 
2021, Estonia adopted the Cohesive Estonian Development Plan, which integrates a number of development 
plans and strategies. 

121  The plan contains actions such as promoting the ability of NGOs to collect donations, including providing 
support  and  counselling  to  NGOs;  making  the  funding  for  NGOs  more  transparent;  supporting  capacity 
building  of  NGOs  through  offering  a  diversity  of  funding  opportunities  and  reducing  the  dependency  on 
project grants; Estonian Government (2021), Cohesive Estonia Development Plan 2021-2030, pp. 29-31. 

122  Input from Estonia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 13. 
123  Information  received  from  the  Open  Estonia  Foundation,  Human  Rights  Center  Estonia  and  Estonian 

Institute of Human Rights in the context of the country visit to Estonia. 

15 

 
                                                 
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2022 Rule of Law Report 
can  be  found  at  https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2022-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-
consultation_en. 

Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (2022),  Monitoring Media Pluralism in the Digital 
Era in the year 2021 – Country report: Estonia. 

Civicus, Monitor tracking civic space – Estonia https://monitor.civicus.org/country/estonia/. 

Council  for  the  Administration  of  Courts  (2022),  Statistics  for  the  workload  of  courts  for  2021 
https://www.kohus.ee/sites/default/files/dokumendid/I%20ja%20II%20astme%20kohtute%202021.a
%20menetlusstatistika_1.pdf. 

Council  of  Europe,  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists  – 
Estonia https://fom.coe.int/en/pays/detail/11709506. 

Court of Harju (2021), President of the Court of Harju, Order No 11-1/21/30 - On a request by the 
President of Harju County Court for referral of cases pursuant to Section 451 of the Courts Act, 7 
July 2021. 

Court of Harju, order of 14 April 2022, 1-22-1949. 

Directive  (EU)  2018/1808  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  14  November  2018 
amending Directive 2010/13/EU. 

Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2019 on the 
protection of persons who report breaches of Union law. 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2019),  Flash  Eurobarometer  482:  businesses'  attitudes 
towards corruption in the EU. 

Directorate-General for Communication (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: corruption. 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2022),  Flash  Eurobarometer  507:  businesses’  attitudes 
towards corruption in the EU. 

Directorate-General for Communication (2022), Special Eurobarometer 523: corruption. 

ERR and Estonian Association of Media Enterprises (2022), Private media firms join ERR in public 
address on press freedoms. 

Estonian Government (2021), Cohesive Estonia Development Plan 2021-2030. 

Estonian  Government  (2021),  Good  Practice  In  Communicating  With  Lobbyists  For  Officials 
https://www.korruptsioon.ee/en/conflict-interests/good-practice-communicating-lobbyists. 

Estonian  Government  (2021),  Guidelines  For  Ministers  And  Their  Advisers  To  Avoid  Conflicts  Of 
Interest 
https://www.korruptsioon.ee/en/conflict-interests/guidelines-ministers-and-their-advisors-
avoid-conflicts-interest. 

Estonian Government (2022), Input from Estonia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

Estonian Judges Association (2022), Workload survey for I-II level judges. 

Estonian 
https://meedialiit.ee/statistika/statistika-2021/. 

Companies 

Media 

Association 

(2021), 

Statistics 

2021 

European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Estonia. 

European Commission (2021), 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Estonia. 

European Commission (2022), 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 

16 

 
European  Court  of  Human  Rights,  judgment  of  22  June  2021,  R.B.  v.  Estonia,  22597/16, 
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0622JUD002259716. 

European Federation of Journalists Estonia (2022), Criminal fines for journalists over public interest 
reporting send dangerous signal. 

European Implementation Network (2022), Contribution from the European Implementation Network 
for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

GRECO (2021), Fifth evaluation round – Compliance report on Preventing corruption and promoting 
integrity in central governments (top executive functions) and law enforcement agencies. 

Ministry 
https://www.korruptsioon.ee/et/tegevuskava-aruanne-2021. 

Anti-corruption 

Justice, 

The 

of 

Action 

Plan 

2021-2025 

Ministry  of  Justice  (2022),  Written  contribution  from  the  Ministry  of  Justice  in  the  context  of  the 
country visit. 

Reporters without Borders (2022) – Estonia https://rsf.org/en/estonia.  

Supreme Court and Council for the Administration of Courts (2022), Contribution from the Supreme 
Court and Council for the Administration of Courts for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

Transparency International (2022), 2021 Corruption Perception Index. 

Summary 
https://www.korruptsioon.ee/sites/www.korruptsioon.ee/files/elfinder/dokumendid/kokkuvote_lobiko
htumistest_2021_kve_lplik.pdf.  

meetings 

lobby 

of 

- 

17 

 
Annex II: Country visit to Estonia 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in February 2022 with: 

  Anti-corruption Select Committee 
  Consumer protection and Technical Regulatory Authority 
  Estonian Association of Journalists 
  Estonian Association of Judges 
  Estonian Bar Association 
  Estonian Institute of Human Rights 
  Estonian Internal Security Service 
  Estonian Public Broadcasting 
  Estonian Press Council  
  Human Rights Center Estonia 
  Ministry of Culture 
  Ministry of Finance 
  Ministry of Foreign Affairs 
  Ministry of Interior 
  Ministry of Justice  
  Office of the Chancellor of Justice 
  Open Estonia Foundation 
  Political Party Financing Surveillance Committee 
  National Audit Office 
 
  The Prosecutor’s Office 
  The Supreme Court and Council for the Administration of Courts 
  Transparency International Estonia 

the Police and Border Guard Board 

* The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings:  

  Amnesty International  
  Article 19  
  Civil Liberties Union for Europe 
  Civil Society Europe  
  European Centre for Press and Media Freedom  
  European Civic Forum 
  European Federation of Journalists  
  European Partnership for Democracy 
  European Youth Forum 
  Free Press Unlimited 
  Human Rights Watch  
 
 
 
  Open Society European Policy Institute (OSEPI) 
  Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa  
  Philea 
  Reporters Without Borders 
  Transparency International Europe 

ILGA Europe 
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) 
International Press Institute 

18